|
VitalSigns posted:This wouldn't be a problem if 5 of those people weren't Supreme Court justices.  e: That was a bad snipe. Here is the notorious RBG in her dissent jabot: 
Platystemon fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Dec 7, 2017 |
#
?
Dec 7, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
Cooper v Harris, the North Carolina gerrymandering case, came up in the Trump / quote:
Could someone better at lawnerding synopsize Thomas' gerrymandering principles, at least as demonstrated here?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
American typographical conventions that refuse to evolve with the times are the worst. Legal conventions even moreso. gently caress the all caps "conspicuous" nonsense and learn to use a goddamn boldface font, you dinosaurs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
anatoliy pltkrvkay posted:American typographical conventions that refuse to evolve with the times are the worst. Courts have been behind the times in orthography for centuries. Samuel Pepys, 12 July 1660 posted:Up early and by coach to White Hall with Commissioner Pett, where, after we had talked with my Lord, I went to the Privy Seal and got my bill perfected there, and at the Signet: and then to the House of Lords, and met with Mr. Kipps, who directed me to Mr. Beale to get my patent engrossed; but he not having time to get it done in Chancery-hand, I was forced to run all up and down Chancery-lane, and the Six Clerks’ Office but could find none that could write the hand, that were at leisure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Cooper v Harris, the North Carolina gerrymandering case, came up in the Trump / Best place to start would be with Thomas's dissent in Easley v Cromartie (page 259), because he writes very plainly about his gripe with majority's opinion. The "clear-error standard" he mentions and that you left unbolded  is what he's focusings. It is the trial court's responsibility to make determinations of fact, and the appellate courts should defer to those determines. Obviously, if the trial court just completely gets it wrong, the appellate court can rule that the "finding of fact" was clearly erroneous and reject that fact. In Cromartie II he dissents against the Court's holding that the trial court made a "clear-error" in determining that the district was drawn with racial, not political, motivations. His main thrust is that, while he might have ruled differently*, the evidence that the trial court used to determine that the gerrymander was racially motivated was sufficient and not clearly erroneous. For Harris he sticks to his guns on this not being clearly-erroneous, and this is the ruling opinion's holding as well. Kagan clearly sates this then when citing "deferential standard of review" for affirming the lower courts decision. *Both the dissent and opinion of Cromartie II cite Anderson v Besemer City, in that a clear-error is distinct for what the appellate judge/court would've ruled at trial.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Cooper v Harris, the North Carolina gerrymandering case, came up in the Trump / BirdOfPlay posted:The "clear-error standard" he mentions and that you left unbolded  His thing about hating the VRA for good or ill is at least internally consistent. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/943292092834607105
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
Gorsuch reads an opinion from the bench
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Death row resident Keith Leroy Tharpe is getting another shot at appeals, after the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the juror who called him a racial slur and told Tharpe's lawyer that "I have wondered if black people even have souls" may have been prejudiced or swayed by Tharpe's race. It shouldn't be any surprise which three justices dissented.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Death row resident Keith Leroy Tharpe is getting another shot at appeals, after the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the juror who called him a racial slur and told Tharpe's lawyer that "I have wondered if black people even have souls" may have been prejudiced or swayed by Tharpe's race. How do we tolerate fascist scum on the SCOTUS? Anyone would vote this way is manifestly unfit. The institution needs to be destroyed and rebuilt. mcmagic fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:How do we tolerate fascist scum on the SCOTUS? Anyone would vote this way is manifestly unfit. The institution needs to be destroyed and rebuilt. if you read their dissent it's darkly hilarious "oh you see, after the state's lawyer took him to the woodshed he started hemming and hawing about if his affidavit was fully correct but never actually disclaimed it but that's all good, he's probably not racist because the victim was black too!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
The question isn't whether the juror was/is a racist though, as far as I understand it. To succeed on his appeal, Tharpe would have had to show that the jury imposed the death penalty because of racial animus, and after interviewing Gattie and the other 11 jurors, the state court concluded that it had not. This is in addition to all the procedural defects in his case. Tharpe kidnapped and raped his wife for trying to leave him, and in the process, executed his wife's sister point blank with a shotgun and rolled her body into a ditch on the side of the road. These facts have not been disputed by Tharpe or his lawyers. The other jurors affirmed that they voted for death because of these facts, and Gattie swore that he voted for death because the evidence presented at trial justified it and because Tharpe showed no remorse, not because of Tharpe's race. Contrast "I think he did it because he’s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want" in Peńa-Rodriguez v. Colorado vs Gattie's "[I've] wondered if black people even have souls.” In one case, you have a juror straight up saying that they are in favor of convicting because of the defendant's race, vs just being generally racist. Yeah, it's loving crazy that a guy who isn't sure whether or not black people have souls was allowed to serve on the jury considering the case of a black man facing a capital murder charge, but the law does not permit overturning a verdict unless it can be shown that the jury convicted because of race, rather than simply showing that someone in the jury room was a racist. Given the high bar that Tharpe faces on re-hearing, I think this is a case of "bad facts make bad law." The majority were looking for any excuse to kick this back because it's just so extraordinarily normatively bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 22:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Contrast "I think he did it because he’s Mexican and Mexican men take whatever they want" in Peńa-Rodriguez v. Colorado vs Gattie's "[I've] wondered if black people even have souls.” In one case, you have a juror straight up saying that they are in favor of convicting because of the defendant's race, vs just being generally racist. Yeah, it's loving crazy that a guy who isn't sure whether or not black people have souls was allowed to serve on the jury considering the case of a black man facing a capital murder charge, but the law does not permit overturning a verdict unless it can be shown that the jury convicted because of race, rather than simply showing that someone in the jury room was a racist. That is one of three things he said, and one of the others explicitly connects his racist views to why he voted the way he did: quote:Here, however, Tharpe produced a sworn affidavit, signed by Gattie, indicating Gattie’s view that “there are two types of black people: 1. Black folks and 2. Niggers”; that Tharpe, “who wasn’t in the ‘good’ black folks category in my book, should get the electric chair for what he did”; that “[s]ome of the jurors voted for death because they felt Tharpe should be an example to other blacks who kill blacks, but that wasn’t my reason”; and that, “[a]fter studying the Bible, I have wondered if black people even have souls.” You're overlooking the second statement which is a clear connection of his racist views to his vote. Now, you can characterize it in other ways - but those become abundantly less credible when he has also said that he doesn't even think black people have souls. The question is, does the affidavit - and the followup one where the state's lawyer obviously coaches him on what to say but he does not not retract the main affidavit (instead, he unconvincingly draws a distinction between that he signed it, but he claims he did not swear to it). What he needs to show is there is "clear and convincing" evidence that the racist voted the way he did because of his racism (you don't need the entire jury, because it had to be unanimous: if this guy didn't vote for death he wouldn't get the death penalty). Now, people can disagree on if that standard will be met when the court weighs the evidence, but that's not what the underlying court did which got it reversed. The underlying court basically said that reasonable people could not dispute that race did not affect the verdict and that decision was obviously wrong. They applied that "can not dispute" standard because the reversed decision didn't decide it on the merits, it decided if he would even be allowed to appeal. This is absolutely good law: the 11th Circuit deserved to be slapped down hard for denying a certificate of appeal here, and it will remain good law even if the decision on the merits goes against him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
I may not be following the nested citations correctly, but my understanding is that the "jurists of reason would not find it debatable" decision by the 11th was with respect to whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling that Peńa-Rodriguez v. Colorado does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review. The district court dismissed, both because Tharpe's motion was procedurally flawed, and also insufficient on its merits per the state court. The majority appears to believe that the "jurists of reason would not find it debatable" was in reference to the merits claim rather than the procedural one, and I haven't had the time to figure out whether they or the dissent are correct. I also don't think that quote shows racial animus that rises to the level of Peńa-Rodriguez. If I say, "there are two types of D&D posters: the good ones, and the shitposters. He wasn't in the 'good' category, and in my book, he deserved to be banned for his post." then it doesn't necessarily follow that I think the poster deserved to be banned primarily because they were a D&D poster. Gattie is definitely hella racist, but I don't think a drunken affidavit elicited by the defense vs sober testimony coached by the prosecution is sufficient to overturn the conviction. E: The merits question appears to boil down to, "Did Gattie vote for death because Tharpe was black, or did he vote for death because Tharpe remorselessly murdered his sister-in-law in the process of kidnapping his estranged wife for a revenge rape?" I don't think the evidence presented to the state Court is sufficient to say it was definitely the former. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Jan 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
Gee I wonder why you think that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
I'm so glad that we're spending the limited time of the supreme court on very important issues like "should a guy who undisputedly killed somebody as part of a rape plot escape death because a juror was a racist"
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I may not be following the nested citations correctly, but my understanding is that the "jurists of reason would not find it debatable" decision by the 11th was with respect to whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling that Peńa-Rodriguez v. Colorado does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review. The district court dismissed, both because Tharpe's motion was procedurally flawed, and also insufficient on its merits per the state court. The majority appears to believe that the "jurists of reason would not find it debatable" was in reference to the merits claim rather than the procedural one, and I haven't had the time to figure out whether they or the dissent are correct. At the end of the day I trust the dissenters as far as I can throw them. As to the merits, it's not about who is right on the merits. It's about if he has enough evidence to entitle him to a hearing. The 11th Circuit didn't rule against him on the merits, they ruled that he didn't have enough evidence to even appeal the decision against him on the merits. Now, maybe the 11th Circuit holds that they just decided to review the merits and rule against him on the merits, but they didn't.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
Sounds good my man, we'll just try you for something in front of a jury who think white people don't have souls and say you should be made an example of to other white people, I'm sure they'll vote based purely on the merits of your case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
I think he should escape death because the death penalty is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sounds good my man, we'll just try you for something in front of a jury who think white people don't have souls and say you should be made an example of to other white people, I'm sure they'll vote based purely on the merits of your case. But white people don't have souls 
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
Javid posted:I'm so glad that we're spending the limited time of the supreme court on very important issues like "should a guy who undisputedly killed somebody as part of a rape plot escape death because a juror was a racist" The whole point of this is he deserves a hearing and due process on the matter as guaranteed by the constitution. He was denied that due process incorrectly, and now will get a hearing on the substantive issues at hand. These rights protect both innocent and guilty, and in the case of capital punishment there is necessarily enhanced scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 01:08
|
|
|
Javid posted:I'm so glad that we're spending the limited time of the supreme court on very important issues like "should a guy who undisputedly killed somebody as part of a rape plot escape death because a juror was a racist" the supreme court didn't bother to spend any real time on it, this was a summary reversal. a clerk read over it, thought "are you kidding me", handed it off to their judge who thought "are you kidding me", it was mentioned to the whole court and 6 of the 9 thought "are you kidding me" and ordered a clerk to draft a short order saying "are you kidding me, don't do this again" so the lower courts would not do such a stupid thing again, and then the two idiots and the one crazy person wrote a fifteen page dissent
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 01:38
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:But white people don't have souls It's true. Tried to sell mine to the devil and he just laughed at me. Also is this going to continue to be the thread for 2018? Need an updated title then... SCOTUS 2018: two idiots and the one crazy seems reasonable Or a Gorsuch quote, I'm sure there's something terrible in his word salad writing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 01:51
|
|
|
Javid posted:I'm so glad that we're spending the limited time of the supreme court on very important issues like "should a guy who undisputedly killed somebody as part of a rape plot escape death because a juror was a racist"
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
SCOTUS 2018: That's the nub of the dispute now before us
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 02:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:SCOTUS 2018: That's the nub of the dispute now before us It's spelled noob, Neil. And it's poor form to just ramble on with self-references like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 02:16
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:I think he should escape death because the death penalty is wrong. Solitary confinement is undeniably torture, so there's pretty much no good option for people who are too dangerous to be in a general prison population. Would you volunteer to be the cellmate of someone who was unremorseful after committing brutal rape and murder? Would you want to be anywhere near them? Some people are just loving monsters and there's nothing that can be done, sadly -- your choices are either going to be giving them death or a lifetime of torture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 02:43
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:At the end of the day I trust the dissenters as far as I can throw them. As to the merits, it's not about who is right on the merits. It's about if he has enough evidence to entitle him to a hearing. The 11th Circuit didn't rule against him on the merits, they ruled that he didn't have enough evidence to even appeal the decision against him on the merits. Now, maybe the 11th Circuit holds that they just decided to review the merits and rule against him on the merits, but they didn't. It's not about whether he has enough evidence to entitle him to a hearing. He's already presented that evidence to a state court, and found lacking, because he has never presented any evidence that Gattie’s presence on the jury was prejudicial to his case. That's why he's been lodging successive appeals in the first place. He's not even appealing the finding of the state Court: he's appealing the finding of the 11th circuit that the district court was correct in finding that Tharpe had already procedurally defaulted in state court. The majority intentionally misreads the 11th Circuit's statement that reasonable jurists would not disagree with the procedural ruling in order to circle back and readdress the finding of fact by the state court, despite admitting "that factual determination is binding on federal courts, including this Court, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary." Mr. Nice! posted:The whole point of this is he deserves a hearing and due process on the matter as guaranteed by the constitution. He was denied that due process incorrectly, and now will get a hearing on the substantive issues at hand. This dude has been filing appeals to the Supreme Court since at least *1992*, never disputing the fact that he murdered a woman while kidnapping and raping another, but instead attempting to re-litigate every aspect of his trial at every level in order to drag out his death sentence. Before this, it was mental capacity and ineffective assistance of counsel. He's had his due process. VitalSigns posted:Sounds good my man, we'll just try you for something in front of a jury who think white people don't have souls and say you should be made an example of to other white people, I'm sure they'll vote based purely on the merits of your case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 02:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The question isn't whether it's OK for a colossal racist to sit on a jury, the question is whether, having discovered this decades after the fact, we should delay a justly delivered sentence yet again despite the appellant having failed to show that this made any difference to the outcome of his trial. The only reason it's even a question is because racism and the death penalty are hot button issues. "Justly delivered sentence" is begging the question here. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be comfortable trusting that a fair and impartial decision on the merits is being made by the guy who says you and everyone who looks like you doesn't have a soul and the other jurors want you executed as a lesson to white people. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Jan 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
Scalia’s spirit has returned to Earth and is posting on the something awful forums? You can’t show if something affected a trial if you don’t even hear it, that’s what happened here right? Can’t they re do the punishment phase?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 02:57
|
|
|
Due process is good he's not being set free about it what's the big deal
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Yeah, I figured a lot of your objections had already been formed as soon as you found out who the authors were. no my objections were formed when i read it. you have pointed to one minor issue we cannot resolve on the opinions, but given the intellectual stature and lack of intellectual honesty of gorusch and alito. you have, clearly, not read the underlying decision (as I haven't) but you're making the assumption that those two morons are correct, and you continually botch the majority's decision which is a mere two pages we can go into great detail about if the decision that yes, you can look behind a jury verdict where a juror was an unabashed racist is retroactive or not and if that decision is correct, but what you have decided to defend here is that an affidavit that a man is a giant racist and he used his racist views in informing his decision could not reasonably create any dispute over if the racist had an impact. you cannot manage to keep straight what the standard even being discussed is. not even those two idiots or thomas cares to defend your argument. instead they argue that the supreme court misread the 11th and that the order doesn't mean what the supreme court said it did. because they wouldn't defend, as you seem to, what the supreme court views the order as saying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 03:33
|
|
|
A sentence of death reached where one of the jurors decided to hang him just because he was black is not one that is "justly reached." He should have his chance to have a hearing on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 03:35
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:A sentence of death reached where one of the jurors decided to hang him just because he was black is not one that is "justly reached." the one thing dead reckoning got right is he did have a hearing on the matter. he's appealing that hearing, and he's being denied that appeal because it is apparently inconcievable that a death sentence that must be unanimous was affected by someone who swore a buttload of racist stuff and that the racist stuff influenced their decision and has, to this day, not recanted
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 03:36
|
|
|
Let me amend that statement - a proper hearing on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 03:38
|
|
|
tsa posted:Solitary confinement is undeniably torture, so there's pretty much no good option for people who are too dangerous to be in a general prison population. Would you volunteer to be the cellmate of someone who was unremorseful after committing brutal rape and murder? Would you want to be anywhere near them? Some people are just loving monsters and there's nothing that can be done, sadly -- your choices are either going to be giving them death or a lifetime of torture. If only there was some way to house prisoners that wasn't in a standard "general population with cellmates" situation, but also wasn't deliberately constructed to break prisoners' minds by denying them even the tiniest incidental bits of social contact. Since those are the only two options, though, I guess there's nothing to do but torture or kill them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
tsa posted:Solitary confinement is undeniably torture, so there's pretty much no good option for people who are too dangerous to be in a general prison population. Would you volunteer to be the cellmate of someone who was unremorseful after committing brutal rape and murder? Would you want to be anywhere near them? Some people are just loving monsters and there's nothing that can be done, sadly -- your choices are either going to be giving them death or a lifetime of torture. Solitary confinement is a hell of a lot more than no cellmate. You can easily accomodate no cellmate, but also social interaction and stimulus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:SCOTUS 2018: That's the nub of the dispute now before us Tell me he didn't use that loving phrase again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
lol DR does manage to spit out the wrong opinion 100% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:lol DR does manage to spit out the wrong opinion 100% of the time. Part Cato, part Kristol
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2018 05:56
|
|